[172332] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Time Warner IPv6 Reverse DNS?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (joel jaeggli)
Fri Jun 13 11:58:10 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:57:40 -0700
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: James R Cutler <james.cutler@consultant.com>, NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <E9D3F0CC-DEB3-4BA2-A11F-50F0DA9C05FD@consultant.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--hjut4hLwRLSEIPDOsIWqsw1qx4xHHocwh
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 6/13/14, 8:26 AM, James R Cutler wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org> wrote:
>=20
>> We've corresponded offline.
>>
>> I documented the difficulties in providing reverse DNS for IPv6
>> residential users in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-isp-ip6rd=
ns-06
>> It's a long-expired draft, which never found sufficient support from a=
WG
>> or AD. I've been meaning to rewrap it as a BCOP, but lack cycles.
>>
>> Lee
>>
>> On 6/12/14 11:58 AM, "hasser css" <hasservalve@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Some IPv6 email is not working well for me on my TWC Internet connect=
ion
>>> due to their IPv6 block not having PTR records.
>>>
>>> Is it possible for me to delegate my IPv6 range to my own DNS server,=
or
>>> something similar? I have talked to level 3 support and they were pre=
tty
>>> much clueless, so I decide to ask here if anyone has insight or simil=
ar
>>> issues in the past.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>
>>
> This exchange brings to mind several questions (and comments):
>=20
> 1. Should not RFC 1033 be considered =93Historic=94?
> I note that iPv6 was only a faint longing and otherwise undefined at t=
hat time.
>=20
> 2. What is the real rdns business requirement for residential customer=
s?
> I have difficulty finding anything but SMTP servers needing rdns entri=
es.
> Practical end-to-end security should be independent of media and addre=
ssing.
I would like an authoritative nameserver to give me as quickly is
possible. imho lame delegation of reverse is way worse then not having a
ptr.
> 3. Would this question be better posed on the =93mailop=94 mailing list=
(if SMTP service is the issue) or perhaps dns-operations@mail.dns-oarc.n=
et?
> =09
> Since =93hasser css=94 did not explain his business requirement for rdn=
s, it really difficult to provide advice.
> =09
>=20
> James R. Cutler
> James.cutler@consultant.com
> PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu
>=20
>=20
>=20
--hjut4hLwRLSEIPDOsIWqsw1qx4xHHocwh
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlObH38ACgkQ8AA1q7Z/VrJiEwCdFzIe1svX7vi5YILb4ubuup8o
CxoAniY5xd04WEapI6mM/gV3ukubjvL0
=c21N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--hjut4hLwRLSEIPDOsIWqsw1qx4xHHocwh--
